2018 Supreme(SC) 867

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Yashwant Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386, 299, 387-388 of 2008 & 182-187 of 2009
Decided On : 04-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
All murders are culpable homicide, but the vice versa may not be true in all cases.
Factual causation and legal causation u/s 299.
Concurrent finding of facts by courts below cannot be disturbed unless perverse.
Need to amend law relating to custodial death.
‘Nuremburg defence’ i.e. acting on orders of superior is available only when the order was unlawful but believed to be lawful.
Legal maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not applicable in India.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 299 – All murders are culpable homicide – But vice versa may not be true in all cases. (Para 16)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 299 – Causation – “Causal relationship between conduct and result” – Factual causation and legal causation – Factual causation, a matter of fact as regards action of accused causing death of the person – Legal causation concerns with imputation of death to accused’s action as being responsible legally – Instantly deceased dying of asphyxiation hours later when injuries were inflicted – Moreover injuries not grievous – Causal link between injuries caused to deceased by police and his death not established – Held, Section 299 not attracted – No question of attracting Section 302 or 304. (Para 17, 18, 19, 21)

       [1975] 3 All ER 446 (CA) – Referred

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Concurrent finding of facts by courts below – Cannot be disturbed unless perverse. (Para 22)

       (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2009) 13 SCC 670 – Referred

       (d) Custodial death – Need to amend evidence Act – Emphasized. (Para 23)

       (1995) 4 SCC 262 – Referred

       (e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 76 – ‘Nuremburg defence’ – Acting on orders of superior – Available only when the order was unlawful but believed to be lawful. (Para 25)

       AIR 1981 SC 1917 – Referred

       (f) Criminal jurisprudence – Legal maxim ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ – Not applicable in India – Presence of A 10 with the raiding party reasonably doubtful – Has been rightly acquitted. (Para 27)

       (2007) 10 SCC 455; (2008) 17 SCC 152; (2009) 12 SCC 275 – Relied upon

       (g) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 330 – Quantum of punishment – Police knowingly taking into custody a wrong person and his family – Falsely implicating the deceased – Lawlessness and excessiveness – Punishment enhanced for three years to seven years. (Para 32, 34)

       Criminal Appeal No. 959 of 2018; (2013) 11 SCC 382; (2012) 2 SCC 648 – Relied upon

       AIR 1936 Lah 471 – Cited with approval

       Facts of the case:

       On 23.06.1993 one head constable Telgudiya (PW48) came to P.I Narule (A1) accompanied by three persons namely Ganeshprasad, Arunkumar and Kashiram. They informed P.I Narule (A1) that they were staying at India Sun Hotel and were looted eight days before.

       On that night , the accused patrolling party which included P.I Narule (A1), Assistant Police Inspector Yashwant Mukaji Karade (A2), SubInspector Rambhau Vitthalrao Kadu (A3), Police constables Jahiruddin Bashirmiya Deshmukh (A4), Nilkanth Pandurang Chaurpagar (A5), Namdeo Nathuji Ganeshkar (A6), Ramesh Tukaram Bhoyar (A7), Ashok Bhawani Gulam Shukla (A8), Sudhakar Marotrao Thakre (A9) and Raghunath Barkuji Bhakte (A10), along with Ganeshprasad, Arunkumar and Kashiram, went to the house of H.C.P Telgudiya (PW48).

       Around 1:00 AM in the night, the police party took into custody Joinus (deceased). Thereafter, the police party tied Joinus (deceased) to an electric pole outside and was beaten by the police personnel with sticks. Later Joinus (deceased) and his other family members were taken to various locations including Rani Kothi, Hill Top restaurant wherein he was given beatings intermittently. At about 3:55 AM he was brought back to the police Station, wherein he was lockedup with two other cell mates.

       In the morning of 24.06.1993 at 7:30 AM, Joinus (deceased) was found dead. The trial court acquitted all the 10 accused of offences u/s 302 but convicted and sentenced them u/s 330,354,355,342.

       The high court partly allowed the appeals preferred by the accused officer by acquitting accused no. 1 to 9 of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 355, 342 read with 34 of IPC, however, upheld the conviction under Section 330 of IPC. Moreover, Raghunath Barkuji Bhakte (A10) was acquitted of all the offences.

       Finding of the Court:

       No interference warranted except enhancing punishment u/s 330.

       Result: Criminal Appeal Nos. 182-187 of 2009 partly allowed.

       Criminal Appeal Nos. 385-386 of 2008, and 387-388 of 2008, Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2008 dismissed.